“The  Solid  South” 


and  the 


Afro-American  Race  Problem 


Speech  of 


CHARLES  FRANCIS  ADAMS 


AT 


THE  ACADEMY  OF  MUSIC 


RICHMOND,  VA. 


Saturday  Evening,  24  October,  1908 


BOSTON 


■  K,  w\i;  ■* V'-*" 


?§;  *  ’..i^fcv  .4*  A/- ' 


;$&  •Te5&v8£ 


Sfc 


v, 


WITH  COMPLIMENTS  OF 


Charles  f.  Adams, 

84  State  St.,  koston. 


Speech  of 

CHARLES  FRANCIS  ADAMS 

AT 


THE  ACADEMY  OF  MUSIC 
RICHMOND,  VA. 


Saturday  Evening,  24  October,  1908 


BOSTON 


Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 
in  2018  with  funding  from 
University  of  North  Carolina  at  Chapel  Hill 


https://archive.org/details/thesolidsouthafrOOadam 


“The  Solid  South” 

and 

The  Afro-American  Race  Problem. 


It  will  now,  in  less  than  six  months,  be  forty-four  full  years 
since  Appomattox  day,  —  that  day  when,  through  the  action  of 
the  greatest  of  all  modern  Virginians,  the  War  of  Secession  was 
brought  to  a  dramatic  close.  Forty-four  years  covers  the  whole 
lifetime  of  one  entire  generation  of  men  and  a  third  part  of  that 
of  a  second  generation.  The  man  of  twenty-one  in  1865  is,  then, 
a  man  of  sixty-five  now,  —  practically  on  the  retired  list;  and, 
if  he  has  during  the  intervening  years  been  a  good  citizen  he, 
next  month,  will  have  cast  his  ballot  at  eleven  presidential  elections 
—  covering  the  candidates  from  the  first  election  of  Grant  to  that 
one  who  may  be  his  choice  on  the  3d  of  November.  During  the 
present  canvass  we  have  heard  almost  no  reference  at  all  to  the 
War  of  Secession,  —  the  embers  of  the  great  strife  have  not  been 
raked  over,  nor  its  passions  and  enmities  stirred  up  into  a  fitful 
blaze.  Both  statesman  and  demagogue  have  left  it  severely 
alone.  In  fact,  since  1876  and  the  inauguration  of  President 
Hayes,  appeals  of  that  character  have  ceased  to  be  in  vogue  — 
vulgarly  speaking,  the  “bloody  shirt”  long  since  passed  away 
as  a  political  emblem  on  either  side,  and  to  the  eyes  and  ears  of 
the  vast  majority  of  those  who  will  vote  at  the  election  of  Tuesday 
week  the  phrase  has  no  significance.  And  yet,  in  spite  of  all 
this,  it  is  a  significant  and  curious,  as  well  as  an  indisputable 
fact  that  the  coming  election  will  turn  on  the  still  living  memories 
and  traditions  of  the  great  strife,  and  the  more  vital  issues  which 
grew  out  of  it.  Proverbially,  the  ground  swell  following  mighty 
tempests  is  slow  in  subsiding. 

I  have  said  that  this  was  an  indisputable  as  well  as  a  significant 
and  curious  fact;  to  prove  it  so  it  is  merely  necessary  to  call  a 
moment’s  attention  to  the  attitude  in  the  present  canvass  of  the 
eleven  States  which  once  constituted  the  Confederacy  —  now 
what  is  known  as  the  Solid  South.  To  a  large  extent,  by  no 
means  impossibly  as  a  controlling  factor,  those  States  will  influence 
the  result.  Assuredly,  without  their  votes  conceded  to  him  in 

3 


600246 


advance,  one  of  the  two  leading  candidates  would  simply  drop 
out  of  the  running;  and  yet  those  States  have  been,  and  now  are, 
ignored  as  a  factor  in  the  contest.  In  the  eyes  and  minds  of  the 
party  managers  they  are  a  mere  recognized  appendage  of  one 
political  party,  —  a  species  of  bob,  so  to  speak,  on  the  tail  of  its 
kite.  From  the  beginning  of  the  canvass  this  has  been  apparent. 
It  was  notorious  at  Chicago  as  at  Denver,  and  before  both  the 
nominating  Conventions;  it  has  been  an  accepted  fact  through¬ 
out  the  somewhat  languid  debate  now  drawing  to  its  wearisome 
close.  By  both  Democrats  and  Republicans  the  South  has  been 
looked  upon  as  a  fixed  political  quantity,  to  be  weighed  and  treated 
as  such  —  and,  as  such,  ignored! 

Obviously  also  this  curious  result  is  due  to  the  fact  that  the 
South  has  thus  become  solidified  in  presence  of  an  overshadowing 
problem  affecting  its  very  existence  as  a  free  and  civilized  indus¬ 
trial  community.  I  refer,  of  course,  to  the  great  Afro-American 
Race  Problem,  —  in  its  present  form,  a  problem  the  direct  outcome 
of  the  War  of  Secession.  For  reasons  well  understood  also,  this 
underlying  motive  of  a  Solid  South  —  the  great  unsolved  problem 
of  our  day  and  country  —  has  not  entered  into  the  presidential 
debate.  One  candidate  has  altogether  ignored  it;  the  other  has 
touched  on  it  only  in  the  most  desultory  and  delicate  way. 
Indeed,  in  whatever  aspect  viewed,  it  must  be  confessed  it  is 
somewhat  dynamitic  in  character.  For  that  very  reason  I  am  here 
to  discuss  it,  —  perhaps  it  would  be  more  correct  to  say  I  am  here 
to  philosophize  over  it,  —  this  evening.  For  one  without  either 
political  connections  or  a  possible  political  future,  there  is  a  certain 
fascination  in  political  dynamite.  President  Roosevelt  has  declared 
that  his  “ spear  knows  no  brother”;  and,  to  the  political  free  lance, 
dynamite  has  no  terror.  The  explosive  cannot  hurt  him.  And 
so  I  propose  on  this  occasion  to  handle  the  dynamite  referred  to 
with  a  freedom  bordering  on  recklessness. 

But  I  have  also  this  evening  a  long  way  to  travel,  and  I  must 
do  it  at  the  double  quick  if  I  propose  to  reach  my  destination  at 
all.  None  the  less  I  have  got  to  begin  very  far  back.  I,  a  Massa¬ 
chusetts  man,  am  talking  in  Virginia  and  to  Virginians.  An  old 
anti-slavery  man,  by  inheritance  a  believer  in  Emancipation  under 
the  War  Power,  I  was  through  four  long  years  of  active  operations 
an  officer  in  the  Union  Army,  and  as  such  was  more  familiar  by  far 
with  A  irginia  —  your  mountains,  rivers  and  valleys  —  than  I 
ever  was,  or  now  am,  with  any  equal  extent  of  country  in  my 
native  NewT  England.  I  have  traversed  the  Old  Dominion  from 
the  Shenandoah  to  the  James.  All  this  you  will  bear  in  mind, 

4 


Southern  Pamphlets 
Rare  Book  Collection 
UNC-Chapel  Hill 


and  I  cannot  forget  it;  though  in  passing,  let  me  add  that, 
having  since  had  occasion  to  familiarize  myself  more  or  less  with 
every  portion  of  the  common  country  from  Maine  to  Texas  and 
California,  I  hold  Virginia  still,  as  respects  natural  endowments, 
to  be  the  garden  spot  of  the  continent.  I  so  thought  it  four  and 
forty  years  ago;  I  so  think  it  now.  It  has  but  one  “out”  that  I 
know  of,  —  nor  do  I  fear  to  name  that  “out,” — the  unhappy 
presence  of  the  African! 

I  propose  to  come  to  that  presently.  Before  doing  so,  however, 
you  must  bear  with  me  while  I  indulge  in  a  short  but  very  necessary 
historical  retrospect.  What  is  the  matter  with  our  present  political 
situation?  Why  is  it  so  involved,  so  confused,  —  in  a  word,  so 
chaotic  and  abnormal?  The  answer  is,  I  think,  obvious,  —  it  is 
so  because  of  the  presence  of  an  abnormal  irremovable  factor 
which  impedes  and  indeed  prevents  that  freedom  and  fluidity  of 
action  essential  to  political  health.  That  factor  is  the  Solid  South. 

Lord  Palmerston,  as  Premier  of  Great  Britain,  was  wont  to  say 
that  people  talked  of  political  landslides  and  overwhelming  majori¬ 
ties  and  all  that  sort  of  thing;  but,  for  his  own  part,  what  he  liked 
best  was  a  strong  Government  confronted  by  a  strong  Opposition. 
Here,  tersely  put,  lies  the  whole  secret  of  a  successful  parliamentary 
or  representative  government,  —  a  vigorous  Opposition  facing  a 
powerful  Administration.  But  this  is  exactly  what  our  country 
has  not  got  now,  has  not  had  for  thirty  years,  and,  as  I  see  it,  is 
most  unlikely  to  have  just  so  long  as  there  is  a  Solid  South,  the 
result  of  an  abnormal  political,  social  and  industrial  condition. 

That  it  was  not  always  so,  you  Virginians  most  of  all  must 
realize.  During  the  whole  ante- war  period  —  the  antediluvian 
or  pre-deluge  epoch,  so  to  speak  —  the  South  and  especially 
Virginia,  acting  as  a  rule  in  close  combination  with  the  Democratic 
Party  of  the  North,  greatly  influenced,  where  it  did  not  control 
and  actually  shape  the  national  policy.  You  remember,  and  I 
need  not  recall,  the  constitutional,  financial  and  industrial  issues 
of  that  period,  —  State  Rights,  Strict  Construction,  the  Tariff, 
the  Bank,  the  Sub-Treasury,  Texas.  As  respects  them  all,  a 
strong  Government  was  confronted,  upon  well-defined  issues,  by 
a  strong  and  intelligent  Opposition.  The  South,  then  a  mighty 
political  factor,  greatly  influenced  results.  The  outcome  of  the 
War  of  Secession  marked  the  change  of  leadership  so  far  as  the 
Democratic  Party  was  concerned.  It  then  lost  its  head,  and 
except  at  rare  intervals  under  the  lead  of  two  marked  personalities 
—  Samuel  J.  Tilden  and  Grover  Cleveland  —  ceased  in  any  proper 
sense  to  be  Democratic  at  all;  it  became  instead  Socialistic.  The 


5 


South,  a  mere  fixed  party  appendage,  was  no  longer  to  be  con¬ 
sidered,  —  it  had  become  a  negligible  quantity.  So  far  as  skill 
and  sagacity,  to  say  nothing  of  standard  and  intelligence,  were 
concerned,  I  think  it  must  be  admitted  the  change  was  not  for  the 
better.  In  every  parliamentary  form  of  government,  whether 
here  or  in  Europe,  what  in  Great  Britain  is  sometimes  known  as 
His  Majesty’s  Opposition  is  quite  as  essential  to  healthy  political 
action  as  is  His  Majesty’s  Government.  Without  the  former, 
if  I  may  use  a  very  old  and  threadbare  simile,  the  Ship  of  State 
becomes  a  vessel  with  no  cargo  in  its  hold  to  serve  as  ballast,  — 
it  yaws  and  lurches  confoundedly  in  its  course.  It  is  the  play¬ 
thing  of  winds  and  waves,  and  the  passing  fancies  of  the  helmsman. 
I  am  not  an  admirer,  political  or  otherwise,  of  Senator  Benjamin 
R.  Tillman  of  South  Carolina.  In  every  possible  respect  I  think 
he  compares  otherwise  than  favorably  with  the  great  traditional 
Carolina  figures  of  the  earlier  period  —  I  need  not  name  them. 
I  recognize  none  the  less  a  great  deal  of  hard  common  sense, 
mixed  with  characteristic  profanity,  in  Mr.  Tillman’s  alleged 
remark  to  David  B.  Hill  that,  in  the  light  of  the  history  of  the 
last  fifty  years,  and  since  the  Southern  direction  ceased  to  control, 
“the  Democratic  Party  could  always  be  relied  on  to  make  a 
damned  fool  of  itself,  at  just  the  wrong  time”!  Think,  in  this 
respect,  of  its  record  since  1864;  the  War,  from  the  Northern 
point  of  view,  declared  a  failure  in  July  of  that  year;  a  little 
later  the  issue  of  paper  money  in  time  of  peace  urged  by  it,  —  by 
the  traditional  hard  money  party;  then  followed  in  rapid  succes¬ 
sion  the  legal  tender  contention;  the  tariff  fiasco  of  the  second 
Cleveland  administration;  that  political  laughing-stock,  the  16  to  1 
silver  craze,  with  its  Cross  of  Gold  interlude;  and  now,  at  last,  the 
party  of  which  Thomas  Jefferson  was  the  fountain  head 
gravely  proposes  a  national  guarantee  of  all  Bank  Deposits,  and 
the  Congressional  licensing  of  interstate  commerce,  with  Govern¬ 
mental  Railroad  ownership  in  the  perspective.  Was  there  ever 
a  political  record  so  fatuous,  so  absurd,  so  illogical,  so  unhistoric! 
In  it,  the  break  with  the  past  is  complete.  I  say  this  too  in  all 
bitterness  of  spirit;  for,  since  reconstruction  days,  I  have  belonged 
to  the  Opposition  to  the  Republican  Party,  and  in  every  presiden¬ 
tial  election  since  1868  would  have  acted  and  voted  with  that 
Opposition  to  turn  the  Republicans  out,  if  the  Democratic  Party 
would  only  have  permitted  me,  as  a  self-respecting  man,  so  to 
do.  Thus,  for  the  last  forty  years  it  has  been  my  fate  to  dwell 
almost  continually  in  the  political  woods,  —  pondering  over  the 
Tillman  aphorism! 


6 


Such  is  the  indisputable  record;  what  is  the  prospect  for  the 
future?  —  “ Watchman,  tell  us  of  the  night,  what  its  signs  of 
promise  are?  ”  Poor,  I  must  confess!  So  far  as  the  party  in  con¬ 
trol  is  concerned,  I  am  one  of  the  politically  dissatisfied.  I  see 
little  that  attracts,  nothing  to  admire  in  the  recent  conduct  of 
affairs,  —  the  administration  program,  so-called.  I  am  an  indi¬ 
vidualist —  in  that  respect  a  disciple  of  Jefferson;  but  I  every¬ 
where  see  a  tendency  to  collectivism.  Constitutionally,  I  am  a 
strict  constructionist,  especially  since  the  Civil  War:  but  I  have 
seen  the  Constitution  treated  with  ill-disguised  contempt;  and 
stretched  by  administrative  and  legislative  construction  until, 
like  FalstafPs  waist,  it  has  got  out  of  all  reasonable  compass.  A 
free-trader,  I  have  looked  on  at  protection  run  mad.  An  economist 
in  public  expenditure,  I  have  studied  the  records  of  billion-do  liar 
congresses.  A  disbeliever  in  costly  armaments,  I  have  been  con¬ 
fronted  with  the  heaviest  war  budget  in  time  of  peace  the  world 
sees,  or  history  records.  A  believer  in  minding  one’s  own  business, 
I  have  seen  my  country  masquerading,  as  I  consider  it,  in  the 
absurd  character  of  an  imperialistic  World  Power.  Somewhat 
of  a  student  of  economical  and  business  developments,  I  have 
felt  growth  hampered  and  thwarted  by  spectacular  performances 
known  as  trust-curbing  and  “ trust-busting.”  Like  every  other 
man  engaged,  or  even  interested,  in  considerable  business  enter¬ 
prises,  I  have  been  denounced,  abused  and  despoiled.  And,  not 
unnaturally  I  think,  I  find  myself  neither  an  ardent  Republican 
nor  a  devoted  supporter  of  the  present  methods  of  administration. 
Tired  of  strenuosity,  I,  in  fact,  yearn  for  a  period  of  rest.  Where 
am  I  to  look  for  it?  Is  it  to  the  present  candidate  of  the  Demo¬ 
cratic  Party?  The  question  answers  itself.  The  chief  fault 
Mr.  Bryan  has  to  find  with  Mr.  Taft  as  his  opponent  is  that  he  will 
not  carry  out  to  their  last  and  logical  results  what  are  known  as 
“the  Roosevelt  policies.”  Mr.  Roosevelt  even  has,  so  the  candi¬ 
date  of  the  present  so-called  Democracy  charges,  confined  his 
activity  to  the  levying  of  fines  and  money  penalties;  but  he, 
Mr.  Bryan,  if  elected,  promises  to  make  evident  the  need,  not  of 
battleships  but  of  more  and  enlarged  penitentiaries.  Judging 
by  his  language  I  should  infer  that,  under  the  regime  he  proposes 
to  install,  to  be  a  director  even  in  any  large  business  undertaking 
will  constitute  prima  facie  evidence  of  states-prison  criminality. 
A  negative  is  in  such  cases  proverbially  hard  to  prove. 

The  simple  fact  is,  and  it  may  as  well  be  blurted  out,  Mr.  Bryan, 
though  in  many  respects  an  estimable  man,  is,  judged  by  any 
recognized  and  historical  test,  no  Democrat  at  all.  The  writer 


7 


of  a  communication  printed  a  few  days  since  in  the  New  York  Sun 
put  the  case  very  fairly:  “Even  Taft,”  he  said,  “shows  himself  a 
better  Jefferson-Tilden  Democrat  than  Bryan  in  regard  to  things 
to  be  left  in  control  of  the  several  States.  Taft  at  least  denies 
that  State  production  implies  interstate  commerce.  Bryan 
affirms  it.”  Bryan  is  thus  “imbued  with  strong  government 
theories  of  so  extravagant  a  character  that  even  Hamilton  would 
have  disowned  and  doubtless  would  have  condemned  them.” 
Mr.  Bryan  is  not  a  strict  constructionist;  he  is  not  a  hard  money 
man;  he  talks  of  local  and  State  government,  but  when  it  comes 
to  legislation  he  advocates,  as  respects  money,  trade  and  means 
of  transportation,  a  system  of  concentrated  government  super¬ 
vision  and  control  such  as  the  civilized  world  has  not  yet  seen. 
In  a  word,  he  is  a  Socialist  of  the  mild  type.  But  the  very  essence 
of  American  Democracy  lay  in  its  faith  in  the  individual;  in  its 
demand  for  freedom  from  governmental  control.  It  is  just  the 
opposite  with  Mr.  Bryan.  He  is  in  fact  the  antithesis  rather  than  the 
follower  of  Jefferson,  and,  unconsciously  perhaps,  he  is  masquerading 
under  a  traditional  Virginia  name  in  garments  peculiar  to  the  North¬ 
west.  To  the  student  of  our  political  history  he  presents  in  so 
doing  a  somewhat  odd,  not  to  say  grotesquely  incongruous  aspect. 

But  many  of  those  who  feel  as  I  do,  —  made  restless,  terrified 
even,  by  the  long  continuance  of  one  party  in  control  of  the  govern¬ 
ment,  —  thoroughly  alarmed  over  its  tendencies,  its  lawlessness, 
as  they  deem  it,  its  undeniable  extravagance,  its  scarcely  dis¬ 
guised  subservience  to  the  protected  interests,  its  morbid  tendency 
to  indiscriminate  meddling,  its  disregard  of  constitutional  limita¬ 
tions  and  avowed  disposition  to  centralize  power  and  authority, 
its  constant  increase  of  the  vast  army  of  office  holders  and  conse¬ 
quent  political  hangers-on  and  “heelers,”  —  seeing,  I  say,  all 
this  —  and  not  a  count  in  the  indictment  is  disputable  —  seeing 
all  this,  many  of  those  who  feel  as  I  feel  are  hot  for  a  change  —  a 
change  of  any  sort.  The  existing  state  of  affairs,  they  insist, 
must  not  be  continued  or  perpetuated;  and  it  will  surely  be  per¬ 
petuated  if  it  is  much  longer  continued.  This  is  plausible;  but 
are  those  who  argue  thus  perfectly  sure  that  an  ill-considered  and 
premature  change  under  existing  conditions  —  especially  in  pres¬ 
ence  of  a  Solid  South  —  is  not  the  most  assured  way  of  renewing 
and  perpetuating  just  that  state  of  affairs  of  which  they  now 
complain,  and  those  tendencies,  the  results  of  which  they  so  fear¬ 
fully  apprehend?  Have  they  wholly  forgotten  their  own  recent 
experience,  now  history?  Let  me  remind  them;  and,  before  so 
doing,  offer  to  them,  free  of  charge,  a  solid  hunk  of  political  wisdom. 


8 


In  that  respect  from  experience  wiser  than  we,  the  English  know 
that  few  things  are  more  disastrous  to  a  political  organization 
dependent  on  parliamentary  support  than  for  it  to  assume  the 
responsibility  of  administration  prematurely,  or  when  as  a  party, 
from  disorganization  or  lack  of  acknowledged  leadership,  it  is  not 
in  position  to  carry  on  the  government  successfully.  By  so  doing 
it  provokes  an  inevitable  reaction;  and,  when  that  reaction  comes, 
it  will  find  itself  powerless  to  stem  it.  As  respects  the  policies  it 
has  at  heart,  its  future  will  then  be  infinitely  worse  than  its  past. 
It  will  have  provoked  and  suffered  a  more  or  less  prolonged  set¬ 
back.  The  precedents,  therefore,  are  many  in  which,  under  such 
circumstances,  His  Majesty’s  Opposition,  even  when  in  position 
so  to  do,  has  declined  to  overthrow  His  Majesty’s  existing  Govern¬ 
ment.  Wisely,  those  composing  it  have  bided  their  time. 

The  significance  of  this  reference  to  a  foreign  experience  lies  in 
its  immediate  application  to  ourselves.  I  doubt  if  there  is  to-day 
a  single  Democratic  or  so-called  Opposition  member  of  Congress 
—  Senate  or  House  —  and  especially  not  one  from  the  South  — 
who  really  in  his  heart  believes  that  the  Democratic  Party  as  at 
present  composed  is  even  remotely  in  condition  successfully  to 
assume  the  responsibility  of  national  administration.  Made  up 
of  incongruous  and  manifestly  discordant  elements,  it  has  no 
established  and  recognized  policy,  and,  above  all,  no  acknowledged 
leadership. 

And  this  brings  me  immediately  to  the  personal  equation,  — 
face  to  face  with  Mr.  Bryan.  With  him  I  propose  to  deal  frankly, 
and,  as  I  think,  fairly.  That  Mr.  Bryan  is  a  kindly,  well-inten¬ 
tioned  man  I  at  once  admit.  He  is  also  honest,  I  suppose,  as  this 
world  goes;  though  I  cannot  but  feel  that  for  a  really  honest  man, 
the  “ go-it-alone,”  16  to  1  delusion  of  1900  was  a  questionable  as 
well  as  novel  way  of  extinguishing  uncomfortable  money  obliga¬ 
tions.  He  certainly  then  strongly  advocated  a  bare-faced  debase¬ 
ment  of  the  coinage  which  he  now  admits  would  have  proved  a 
blunder  as  well  as  a  crime;  and  wholly  uncalled  for  at  that.  That 
Mr.  Bryan  is  possessed  with  a  consuming  desire  to  occupy  the 
presidential  chair  is  apparent;  but  other  and  far  better  and  abler 
men  than  he  have  been  life-long  victims  of  the  same  ambition. 
Henry  Clay,  Daniel  Webster,  Lewis  Cass,  Salmon  P.  Chase  and 
Winfield  Scott  at  once  suggest  themselves  as  cases  in  point.  But 
the  trouble  I  find  with  Mr.  Bryan,  as  the  leader  of  an  Opposition 
offering  to  assume  the  responsibilities  of  office,  is  not  lack  of  honesty 
or  stability  of  temper,  — the  objection  I  make  to  him  lies  deeper; 
it  is  that  he  is  obviously  and  essentially  —  let  me  out  with  it  — 


9 


an  Opportunist  and  a  Charlatan.  Look  at  his  record!  Mr.  Bryan 
began  in  Congress  as  a  tariff  reformer.  But  what  did  we  hear  of 
tariff  reform  when  twice  he  ran  for  the  presidency?  Not  one  word! 
After  Mr.  Cleveland’s  —  the  “bunco-steerer’s/’  as  he  termed  him 

—  experience  with  that,  it  plainly  was  not  a  winning  card.  So  the 
Opportunist  let  a  reform  of  the  tariff  drop.  In  place  of  it,  the 
Charlatan  then  took  up  16  to  1,  with  its  precious  Cross  of  Gold. 
I  fairly  acknowledge  that  my  gorge  rises  as  I  recall  the  course  of 
events  and  his  utterances.  Then  followed  the  absurd  empty- 
dinner-pail  campaign,  with  its  prolonged  lamentation  over  the 
hopeless  case  of  the  unemployed  toiler,  and  the  utter  absurdity 
of  expecting  restored  prosperity  except  on  a  “go-it-alone”  silver 
basis;  all  ending  in  the  eloquent  New  York  City  outburst,  — 
“Great  is  Tammany,  and  Croker  is  its  Prophet!”  The  occasion 
passed;  for  the  “unemployed,”  a  transformation  scene  ensued, 

—  a  period  of  high  wages  unparalleled  in  history.  As  a  result, 
the  Cross  of  Gold  was  relegated  to  the  dust  of  that  lumber-room 
which  serves  as  a  receptacle  for  over-worked  political  emblems. 
Mr.  Bryan  had  no  further  use  for  16  to  1;  and  it  was  distinctly 
impolite  to  allude  to  crosses,  gold  or  otherwise,  in  his  presence. 
Next  he  went  to  Europe,  and  traveled  on  an  imperial  railroad;  and 
forthwith,  the  Opportunist  gave  way  to  the  Charlatan,  and,  when 
he  came  home,  the  theory  of  National  and  State  Railroads  was 
paraded  before  the  eyes  of  an  astonished  American  public.  That 
novelty  failed  to  draw,  especially  in  the  South;  so  it  too  was  speedily 
sent  to  the  lumber-room,  to  keep  company  with  the  Cross  of  Gold. 
A  good  card  some  day,  perhaps,  it  was  not,  just  now,  a  drawing  one! 
Then  came  the  excess-of-prosperity  crisis  of  1907,  and,  fully  equal  to 
the  occasion,  the  Charlatan  again  mounted  the  stage;  and  now  he 
pulled  out  from  the  lumber-room  the  dust-covered,  time-honored 
tariff  reform,  and,  simultaneously,  invented  a  new  elixir  of  life 
labeled  the  Guaranty  of  Bank  Deposits;  and  also  —  “Rest,  rest, 
perturbed  spirit”  of  Thomas  Jefferson!  —  the  National  Licensing 
of  Interstate  Commerce!  The  world,  instead  of  being  governed 
too  much,  as  your  prophet  so  loudly  proclaimed,  cannot,  it  would 
appear,  be  governed  enough.  Congress,  presumably,  has  little  or 
nothing  to  do ;  so  every  branch  of  trade  is  to  be  scrutinized  by  it  on 
a  50%  basis,  and  any  one  engaged  in  it,  not  panoplied  by  a  license 
fresh  from  Washington,  is  to  be  summarily  jailed.  And  —  tell 
it  not  in  the  Gath  of  Monticello;  publish  it  not  in  the  streets  of 
this,  the  Virginia,  Askalon  —  these  bare-faced  political  heresies 
are  all  proclaimed  as  the  accepted  tenets  of  to-day’s  Jeffersonian 
Democracy!  And  you  Virginians  are  not  only  asked  to  gulp  the 


10 


dose  down,  but  —  I  am  glad  to  say  not  without  some  grimacing  and 
considerable  retching  —  you  actually  propose  to  accomplish  the  feat. 

However,  I  am  asked,  —  what  is  the  alternative?  Mr.  Taft :  and 
Mr.  Taft,  I  am  assured,  is  only  Mr.  Roosevelt’s  “  man”;  he  would 
go  into  the  presidential  chair  pledged  to  carry  out  the  policies  of 
his  predecessor.  This,  as  an  alternative,  I  deny.  I  am  no  prophet; 
but  I  most  confidently  assert  that  did  I  want  to  see  Mr.  Roosevelt 
and  his  policies  back,  four  years  hence,  and  securely  entrenched 
in  office,  I  would  now  elect  Mr.  Bryan  president.  Surely  you  have 
not  forgotten  the  Cleveland  experience  of  1892!  We  of  the  Oppo¬ 
sition  then  rejoiced  over  a  premature  victory.  We  turned  the 
Republicans  out.  What  ensued?  Under  the  stress  of  the  financial 
and  commercial  crisis  of  1893  the  Democratic  Party  simply  dis¬ 
solved.  Its  leader  went  one  way  —  the  right  way;  and  the 
Northern  section  of  the  party  went  the  other,  the  wrong  way  — * 
and  Mr.  Bryan,  you  remember,  the  present  leader  of  that  section 
of  the  party,  pronounced  Grover  Cleveland  a  “ bunco-steerer”! 
Now,  I,  a  Massachusetts  man,  tell  you,  Virginians  —  and  in  your 
hearts  you  know  it  to  be  so  —  Mr.  Bryan  is  not  the  man  to  succeed 
Theodore  Roosevelt  in  the  presidential  chair.  As  a  political 
character  Mr.  Roosevelt  is  tolerably  well  understood.  I  am  no 
supporter  of  his.  I  do  not  like  his  methods,  and  I  think  he  has 
gone  far  to  break  down  constitutional  and  traditional  barriers 
which  I  regard  as  very  essential  to  our  national  well-being.  But 
uncertain,  impulsive  and,  consequently,  erratic  as  he  unquestionably 
is,  Mr.  Roosevelt  is  neither  a  Charlatan  nor  an  Opportunist. 
Strenuous  —  altogether,  in  my  judgment,  too  strenuous  —  aggres¬ 
sive,  hard-hitting  and  effusive,  he  is  honest;  and,  while  to  the  last 
degree  theatrical,  he  is  in  his  curious  way  instinctively  tactful. 
He  is  also  courageous  in  both  thought  and  deed;  altogether  a 
masterful  man.  And  the  Opposition  proposes  to  replace  this 
Theodore  Roosevelt  with  William  Jennings  Bryan!  I  do  not  care 
to  follow  out  the  comparison,  but  on  this  prediction  I  confidently 
venture.  Just  so  sure  as  Bryan  now  replaces  Roosevelt,  just  so 
sure  will  our  experience  in  1896  repeat  itself  in  1912.  In  1896 
the  inevitable  reaction  ensued.  Under  the  lead  of  Mr.  McKinley 
the  Republican  ascendency  was  restored;  and  it  came  back,  more 
securely  entrenched  in  power  than  ever,  for  a  period  of  twelve 
years.  So  Roosevelt  will  succeed  Bryan.  From  the  day  of  his 
inauguration  the  latter  will  be  conscious  of  the  shadow  of  his 
predecessor  creeping  over  the  succession. 

You  remember  what  the  demand  was  only  the  other  day  on  the 
part  of  the  extreme  wing  of  the  Republican  Party?  A  stampede 


n 


in  favor  of  what  was  called  a  Second  Elective  Term  was  greatly 
apprehended  at  Chicago.  An  I-told-you-so  cry  would  inevitably 
follow  the  defeat  of  Mr.  Taft.  It  is,  I  know,  the  unexpected  which 
is  apt  to  occur;  but,  in  my  judgment,  a  vote  for  Mr.  Bryan  on 
November  3  of  this  year  is  a  vote  for  Mr.  Roosevelt,  and  a  return 
to  Republican  administration  four  years  hence.  History  will 
repeat  itself. 

The  single  alternative  is  the  election  of  Mr.  Taft.  It  is  true  that 
what  we  really  need  to  clear  the  political  atmosphere,  —  a  re¬ 
alignment  of  parties  on  an  intelligible  basis  of  division,  —  we  will 
not  immediately  get;  as  I  have  said  already,  this  in  my  judgment 
we  cannot  hope  for  until  we  have  a  return  to  normal  conditions 
through  the  break-up  of  the  Solid  South.  In  the  election  of 
Mr.  Taft,  however,  a  long  step  may  well  have  been  taken  towards 
that  most  desirable  result.  Mr.  Taft  I  personally  do  not  know. 
I  have  never  met  him;  nor,  indeed,  have  I  ever  met  Mr.  Bryan. 
But,  when  they  tell  me  that  Mr.  Taft  is  but  the  shadow  of  Mr. 
Roosevelt,  — that,  as  President,  he  will  be  but  his  echo,  I  simply 
do  not  believe  it.  Indeed,  I  know  better.  Mr.  Taft,  if  he  tried, 
could  not  be  the  echo  of  Mr.  Roosevelt  any  more  than,  physically, 
he  could  stand  in  Roosevelt’s  shadow.  That,  in  the  main,  he  will 
carry  forward  the  policies  generally  known  as  those  of  Mr.  Roosevelt, 
I  do  not  question.  In  themselves,  however,  those  policies  —  a  high 
tariff,  profuse  expenditure,  a  large  naval  and  military  establishment, 
an  active  world-power  diplomatic  attitude,  the  centralization  of 
power  and  governmental  control,  a  rigid  and  somewhat  inquisi¬ 
torial  corporate  supervision,  a  sustained  purpose  to  counteract 
the  tendency  to  large  accumulations  of  individual  wealth,  the 
purification  of  political  life,  —  all  these,  I  say,  and  many  other 
issues  of  like  nature  closely  identified  in  the  public  mind  with  the 
intense  activities  of  Mr.  Roosevelt  present  distinct  and  reasonable 
issues  on  which  parties  may  fairly  divide.  In  themselves,  properly 
presented  and  calmly  argued,  they  are  not  open  to  criticism.  But 
when  it  comes  to  presentation  of  issues  and  the  promoting  of 
policies  Mr.  Taft  has  what  Mr.  Roosevelt  distinctly  has  not,  a  legal 
mind,  disciplined  by  judicial  training.  He  may  to  a  degree  be 
strenuous;  but  he  is  by  nature  neither  impulsive  nor  sensational. 
This  conceded,  I  see  no  objection  to  him  in  other  respects.  I  may 
not  advocate  all  that  he  advocates;  on  many  points  I  do  disagree 
with  him  fundamentally :  but  the  issue  would  in  any  case  be  fairly 
joined.  A  result  would  then  be  reached  in  a  recognized  way,  and 
with  due  regard  to  form.  Is  not  this  all  that  can  be  asked,  or  even 
desired,  under  a  representative  government? 


12 


Let  me  illustrate  in  a  concrete  case,  —  the  issue  of  Tariff  Revision. 
For  many  years  somewhat  of  a  student  of  this  subject,  and  in  later 
life  brought  more  than  once  in  direct  contact  with  our  protective 
system  —  sometimes  as  a  sufferer  from  it,  but  much  more  frequently 
as  what  is  euphoniously  called  a  “  beneficiary  ”  —  I  frankly  confess 
myself  an  advocate  of  a  pure  Tariff  for  Revenue.  I  would,  if  I 
could,  wholly  eliminate  from  our  schedules  the  protective  features. 
I  believe  them  to  be  at  best  unnecessary,  and  so  undesirable;  and, 
in  many  cases,  pernicious  —  a  mere  cover  for  legalized  robbery.  In 
some  cases  as  a  “beneficiary,”  so-called,  I  know,  to  my  great 
profit,  this  to  be  the  case.  Mr.  Taft  declares  himself  distinctly 
and  emphatically  in  favor  of  a  revision  of  the  tariff.  As  a  tariff- 
for-revenue  man,  do  I  anticipate  any  real  reduction  of  the  present 
tariff  schedules  in  case  of  the  election  of  Mr.  Taft?  Most  certainly 
not.  Even  less  should  I  hope  for  any  in  case  of  the  election  of 
Mr.  Bryan.  Yet  I  believe  both  Mr.  Taft  and  Mr.  Bryan  would 
honestly  strive,  each  in  his  way,  to  bring  it  about.  But  so  did 
Mr.  Cleveland.  He  proved  powerless;  in  my  belief,  so  will  they. 
How  will  the  game  be  worked?  I  will  tell  you;  it  is  not  hard  to 
explain. 

The  tariff  “beneficiaries”  —  and  I  have  confessed  I  am  one  of 
them  —  are  wise  in  their  day  and  generation.  Thoroughly 
familiar  with  their  business,  infinitely  skilled  in  political  and 
legislative  methods  and  work,  no  thimble-rigger  at  a  county  fair 
is  more  plausible,  or  a  greater  proficient  in  the  game  in  hand.  That 
in  the  next  Congress,  whether  Mr.  Taft  or  Mr.  Bryan  is  President, 
there  will  be  a  so-called  revision  of  the  present  schedules  is  almost 
certain.  Yet  I  state  what  is  of  common  knowledge  when  I  say  it 
is  perfectly  feasible  to  make  an  ostensible  average  reduction  of 
25%  in  the  present  schedules,  and  yet  in  reality  increase  the  actual 
protective  burden  by  at  least  5%.  It  is  only  necessary  to  strike 
off  that  excess  of  duty  which  was  imposed  through  the  different 
schedules  when  the  Dingley  Tariff  was  framed,  with  a  view  to 
trading  thereon  upon  the  passage  of  the  Reciprocity  Treaties  then 
in  negotiation.  Those  treaties  have  not  been  confirmed;  and  now 
the  striking  off  of  those  excess  duties,  judiciously  applied  in  way  of 
ostensible  reduction,  would  in  no  way  lower  the  actual  protective 
system.  Meanwhile,  on  the  other  hand,  a  neatly  arranged  increase 
of  certain  schedules,  as  suggested  by  Mr.  Taft,  would  fill  out  and 
complete  the  protected  abominations.  Here  is  “the  little  joker”; 
and  yet,  as  a  result  of  the  whole,  it  might  publicly,  and  most 
plausibly,  be  proclaimed  that  a  net  tariff  reduction  of  20%  had 
been  effected. 


13 


That  the  whole  thing  was  a  thimble-rigging  fraud  would  be  only 
too  manifest  to  the  well-informed.  To  the  unthinking,  however, 
a  campaign  pledge  would  have  been  faithfully  redeemed. 

Mr.  Taft  I  believe  to  be  a  perfectly  honest  man;  but  he  has 
already  told  us  that  he  has  “been  advised  by  men  who  know” 
that  a  certain  schedule,  to  wit,  that  on  pottery,  could  be  raised 
to  advantage.  The  real  facts  in  the  case  of  that  particular  “little 
joker”  have  since  been  exposed;  and  the  duty  on  the  commodity 
referred  to  is  already,  it  seems,  fixed  in  the  Dingley  Bill  of  Abomi¬ 
nations  at  from  55%  to  60%,  or  “practically  twice  the  total  cost 
of  production”;  and  yet,  as  a  practical  example  of  a  measure  of 
Tariff  Reform,  Mr.  Taft  unconsciously  advises  such  further  pro¬ 
tection  as  shall  be  in  reality  prohibitive ! 

It  was  Macbeth,  I  believe,  who,  on  a  certain  occasion,  energeti¬ 
cally  exclaimed : 

“And  be  these  juggling  fiends  no  more  believed, 

That  palter  with  us  in  a  double  sense; 

That  keep  the  word  of  promise  to  our  ear, 

And  break  it  to  our  hope.” 

It  is  small  matter  of  surprise,  therefore,  that,  with  this  card  up 
the  sleeve,  the  tariff  “beneficiaries”  evince  no  considerable  anxiety, 
irrespective  of  who  may  be  President;  nor  that  the  Steel  men,  the 
Wool  men  and  the  Sugar  men  all  say,  privately  but  with  confidence, 
that  they  do  not  apprehend  their  several  schedules  will  be  affected 
adversely.  You  know  their  persuasiveness  and  their  power! 

Seeing  the  game  about  to  be  put  up  thus  clearly,  you  will  doubt¬ 
less  ask  why  do  I,  as  a  tariff-for-revenue  man,  still  advocate  the 
election  of  Mr.  Taft.  My  answrer  is  immediate  and  direct.  I  bear 
freshly  in  mind  the  Cleveland-Wilson  experience  of  1894.  The 
burnt  child  fears  the  fire.  This  time  I  want  the  tariff  to  be  revised 
by  its  proclaimed  friends,  and  not  by  its  enemies  disguised  as  its 
friends.  I  want,  as  the  outcome  of  it  all,  no  premature  and  decep¬ 
tive  victory,  —  no  Dead  Sea  apple  in  guise  of  another  Wilson- 
Gorman  measure.  Is  Bryan  a  stronger  man  than  Cleveland?  Is 
Taft  equally  in  earnest?  There  wTas  thimble-rigging  done  in  1896, 
—  I,  at  least,  do  not  say  “bunco-steering”;  if  one  or  the  other  is 
to  be  practiced  in  1909  I  want  it  to  be  practiced  by  those  who  can 
be  held  directly  responsible  for  the  game.  I  can  then  see  the  way 
to  a  political  issue.  I  do  not  want  again  to  be  held  accountable 
for  the  “little  joker.”  The  time  for  a  real  and  genuine  tariff 
revision  has  not  yet  come;  nor,  in  my  judgment,  is  Mr.  Bryan  at 


14 


all  the  man  to  achieve  what  Mr.  Cleveland  under  infinitely  more 
favorable  auspices  wholly  failed  to  accomplish.  So,  as  a  tariff- 
reformer  I  say  in  the  favorite  phrase  of  old  Cervantes  —  “ Patience; 
and  shuffle  the  cards!”  and  on  that  issue,  I  vote  for  Mr.  Taft. 

And  now  at  last  I  come  to  the  matter  which  brings  me  here,  — 
the  political  fact  of  a  Solid  South,  involving  as  it  does  the  Afro- 
American  Race  Problem.  I  have  bluntly  told  you  that,  as  a  mere 
fixed  appendage  to  the  so-called  Democratic  machine,  the  South, 
solid  though  it  be,  receives  no  consideration.  It  trails  along  in  a 
species  of  servitude,  the  doubtful  elements,  the  factors  in  the  game 
whose  support  it  is  necessary  to  secure,  —  always  at  a  price,  — 
being  alone  considered.  I  have  also  pointed  out  to  you  that,  so 
far  at  least  as  Virginia’s  traditional  political  theories  are  concerned, 
there  is  absolutely,  as  between  you  and  the  socialistic  democracy 
of  the  Northwest,  nothing  in  common.  Yet  you  find  your¬ 
self  chained  as  it  were  to  the  tail-board  of  the  prairie  schooner. 
Why  is  this  thus?  And  how  long  is  it  to  continue? 

The  raison  d’etre  of  a  Solid  South  is  not  far  to  seek.  We  all  are 
cognizant  of  it.  It  is  founded  in  the  hateful  memory  of  what  is 
known  as  the  Reconstruction  Period;  and  in  a  lurking  apprehen¬ 
sion  of  action  in  the  shape  of  new  force  bills,  or  a  reduction  of 
political  power  under  the  possible  operation  of  the  Fourteenth 
Amendment  to  the  Constitution.  The  Republican  Party,  it  is 
believed,  still  feels  a  secret  hankering  for  the  Negro  vote.  It 
would,  if  it  saw  its  way  to  so  doing,  convert  what  is  now  a  political 
shadow  —  though  a  sometimes  convenient  convention  reality  — 
into  a  potent  and  reliable  ally;  and  this  too  without  regard  to 
local  consequences  so  far  as  the  Southern  community  is  concerned. 
The  bitter  memory  of  the  period  from  1865  to  1876  then  recurs. 
The  portentous  Race  Question  looms  up ! 

And  now  I  come  to  delicate  ground.  I,  a  New  Englander,  a 
Yankee  of  the  Yankees,  an  anti-slavery  man  from  my  birth,  an 
ex-officer  of  the  Union  Army,  a  lineal  descendant  of  a  signer  of 
the  Declaration  of  Independence  brought  up  in  the  faith,  —  I, 
being  all  this  by  tradition,  experience  and  environment,  am  to 
talk  to  you  of  a  problem  largely  in  its  present  form  the  creation 
of  those  of  whom  I  am  one,  and  a  problem  which  you  have  always 
with  you.  I  propose  to  do  so  frankly  and  freely;  though  much 
of  what  I  have  to  say  will,  I  apprehend,  grate  somewhat  harshly 
on  ears  at  home,  and,  not  impossibly,  there  elicit  more  than  one 
indignant  rebuke  and  positive  denial. 

Coming  at  once  to  the  point,  —  so  to  speak  taking  the  bull  by 
the  horns,  —  let  me  say  that  I  fully  concur  in  the  remark  of  some 


15 


observing  Englishman  —  John  Morley,  I  think,  now  Lord  Morley 
—  made  a  year  or  two  ago  as  the  result  of  what  he  saw  and  heard 
during  a  stay  in  this  country.  He  pronounced  the  African  Race 
Problem  in  America  as  being  as  nearly  insoluble  as  a  human 
problem  could  be.  It  is;  and,  so  far  as  we  in  the  United  States 
are  concerned,  its  insolubility  rests  in  the  fact  that  it  offers  a  flat 
negative  —  gives  the  he  direct  —  to  a  fundamental  principle  of 
our  social  and  political  life  and  material  development.  The 
American  system,  as  we  all  know,  was  founded  on  the  assumed 
basis  of  a  common  humanity.  That  is,  absence  of  absolutely 
fundamental  racial  characteristics  was  accepted  as  an  established 
truth.  Those  of  all  races  were  welcome  to  our  shores.  They 
came,  aliens;  they  and  their  descendants  would  become  denizens 
first,  natives  afterwards.  It  was  a  process  first  of  assimilation, 
and  then  of  absorption.  On  this  all  depended.  There  could 
be  no  permanent  divisional  lines.  The  theory  has  now  plainly 
broken  down.  We  are  confronted  by  the  obvious  fact,  as  undeni¬ 
able  as  it  is  hard,  that  the  African  will  only  partially  assimilate, 
and  that  he  cannot  be  absorbed.  He  remains  a  distinct  alien 
element  in  the  body  politic;  an  element  from  smallness  of  quantity 
negligible  in  New  England,  but  in  no  way  negligible  in  the  South. 
What  is  to  be  the  outcome?  What  is  to  be  done?  A  foreign 
substance,  it  can  neither  be  assimilated  nor  thrown  off. 

In  the  North,  and  in  the  community  to  which  I  belong,  a  great 
change  in  opinion,  and  consequent  feeling,  on  this  grave  problem 
has  been  steadily  going  on  for  many  years.  It  can  be  traced  to 
very  remote  sources,  —  for  instance  to  the  Bible,  to  the  Declara¬ 
tion  of  Independence,  and,  not  least,  to  the  writings  of  Mrs. 
Beecher  Stowe.  There  are  still  those  among  people  I  know,  and 
with  whom  I  come  in  almost  daily  contact,  who  on  this  issue 
plant  themselves  firmly  on  what  Rufus  Choate  once  referred  to 
as  the  11  glittering  generalities”  of  the  Declaration  of  Independence. 
Our  theory,  they  say,  was  what  I  have  stated  —  one  of  assimilation 
and  subsequent  absorption,  resulting  in  the  equality  of  men. 
That  theory  they  believe  in  as  of  general  application.  If  the 
facts  are  not  in  accord  with  it,  well  —  so  much  the  worse  for  the 
facts!  They  must  be  compelled  to  come  into  accord  with  it. 
The  theory  is  sacred,  in  complete  harmony  with  the  everlasting 
fitness  of  things  —  as  they  see  them!  The  argument  is  thus 
closed. 

Such,  however,  is  not  now  the  trend  of  thought  of  the  more 
judicious.  They  reason,  and  reason  in  constantly  increasing 
numbers,  to  a  very  different  conclusion,  and  a  conclusion  of  the 


16 


utmost  political  importance  to  you  of  the  South  —  white  or  black. 
I  have  watched  the  change,  —  I  have  undergone  it,  and  observed 
its  process  in  myself.  It  is  interesting.  To  understand  it  we 
must  go  back  about  two  generations,  or  say  sixty  years,  into  the 
scriptural  and,  so  to  speak,  “ Uncle  Tom”  period.  The  African 
was  then  a  brother,  —  descended  from  a  common  ancestor,  — 
to  wit,  Noah.  He  was  the  offspring  of  Ham;  we  of  Japhet  or  of 
Shem  —  which,  exactly,  I  fail  to  recall.  Consequently,  the 
Hamitic  man,  or  negro,  was  simply  God’s  image  carved  in  ebony, 
—  only  partially  developed  under  unfavorable  fortuitous  circum¬ 
stances;  —  in  a  word,  he  was  a  potential  Yankee  who  had,  as  the 
expression  went,  “never  had  a  chance”!  Uncle  Tom  was  then 
held  up  as  individual  proof  of  the  proposition.  This  may  then 
fairly  be  referred  to  as  the  “Uncle  Tom”  period  of  the  Afro- 
American  Race  Problem.  I  think  it  was  the  late  Robert  Toombs 
of  Georgia  who  emphatically  declared  that  Uncle  Tom  was  a 
wholly  imaginary  creation;  but  if  such  a  being  ever  existed  in 
the  flesh,  developed  from  the  African  savage,  it  was  the  strongest 
and  most  irrefutable  argument  in  favor  of  American  slavery  that 
ever  had  been,  or  ever  could  be,  advanced.  A  system  which 
evolved  Uncle  Toms  out  of  Congo  negroes  should  be  sacredly 
preserved.  The  missionary  had  never  succeeded  in  doing  it;  and 
Liberia  was  a  dead  failure.  That  there  was  force  in  the  contention 
cannot  well  be  denied. 

This  was  only  fifty  years  ago ;  yet  the  discussions  and  contentions 
of  that  day  seem  now  strangely  remote,  archaic  even.  There  is 
no  question,  however,  that,  absurd  as  it  sounds  to  us,  the  recon¬ 
struction  system  was  step  by  step  evolved  from  that  as  a  basis. 
So  Robert  E.  Lee  was  disfranchised;  while  the  ballot  was  con¬ 
ferred  on  the  freemen  he  had  himself  liberated.  Further 
comment  would  be  superfluous.  I  am  glad  to  remember  that  I 
then  separated  from  the  Republican  Party  on  that  issue. 

Meanwhile,  the  subtle  change  of  thought  was  going  slowly  on. 
The  scientific  was  gradually,  imperceptibly,  superseding  the 
scriptural;  the  Ham  and  Japhet,  and  Brotherhood  of  Man,  theory 
of  descent  was  receding,  —  was  indeed  no  longer  gravely  advanced. 
Darwin’s  “ Origin  of  Species”  was  published  in  1859;  his  “  Descent  of 
Man”  in  1871;  and  in  the  light  of  his  researches,  and  the  inferences 
necessarily  drawn  from  them,  the  Afro-American  Race  Problem 
assumed  a  new  shape.  Hayti  and  Jamaica  also  have  served  as 
object  lessons.  The  solution  of  the  problem  became  in  the  eyes 
of  some,  and  those  a  constantly  increasing  number,  a  far  more 
complicated  and  difficult  proposition.  After  all,  the  promiscuous 


17 


conferring  of  the  ballot  had  not  solved  it,  —  indeed,  far  from  so 
doing,  it  had  only  served  to  complicate  what  before  was  at  best 
terribly  confused.  As  it  now  presents  itself  it  is  simply  this,  — 
to  devise  some  practical  system,  other  than  one  of  slavery,  whereby 
two  races  of  widely  different  interests,  attainments  and  ideals  can 
live  together  in  peace  and  harmony  under  a  Republican  form  of 
government. 

Thus  stating  the  problem,  at  once  let  me  say,  I  propose  to 
make  no  attempt  at  its  solution.  In  the  invitation  which  brought 
me  here,  it  is  stated  that  “  the  race  question  has  in  Virginia  been 
solved  in  a  manner  which  insures  the  supremacy  of  intelligence; 
gives  to  people  of  all  races  a  fair  opportunity  to  work  out  their 
destiny  upon  their  merits,  and  offers  a  just  reward  to  good  citizen¬ 
ship.”  These  are  words  of  cheer.  That  they  are  justified  by  the 
facts  of  the  case,  I  sincerely  and  devoutly  hope.  Meanwhile,  I  do 
not  for  a  moment  profess  to  be  informed  on  the  subject  myself, 
or,  consequently,  to  be  in  position  to  express  an  opinion.  I  am 
not  here  to  instruct  you  as  to  facts,  as  to  your  obligations,  your 
good  deeds,  or  your  shortcomings.  I  will  run  no  risk  of  still 
further  darkening  a  difficult  case  by  ignorant  or  ill-informed 
counsel;  above  all  I  submit  no  patented  panacea,  warranted  to 
work  a  cure.  Far  too  intricate  and  confused  for  me  to  pose 
as  one  in  any  way  competent  to  deal  with  it,  I  stand  abashed 
and  silent  in  the  awe-inspiring  presence  of  this  awful  and 
mysterious  Afro-American  Sphinx.  On  certain  points  only  am  I 
clear.  In  the  first  place,  I  recognize  the  fact  that  forty-five 
years,  —  the  full  lifetime  of  one  generation  and  the  half  of  the 
lifetime  of  a  second,  —  a  period  longer  by  five  years  than  that 
assigned  for  the  sojourn  of  God’s  chosen  people  in  the  Wilderness 
before  Israel  entered  on  the  Promised  Land,  —  close,  I  say,  upon 
a  full  half  century  has  now  elapsed  since  Lincoln  issued  his  epoch¬ 
marking  Proclamation.  The  African  has  thus  passed  through 
his  full  period  of  probation.  Already  the  third  generation  of 
freedmen  is  coming  forward;  and  from  this  time  on  it  is  but 
reasonable  to  demand  of  those  composing  it  that  they  work  out 
their  own  destiny.  It  is  for  the  Afro-American,  as  for  the 
American  descendant  Of  the  Celt,  the  Slav,  or  the  Let,  to  shape 
his  own  future,  accepting  the  common  lot  of  mankind.  He  must 
not  ask  to  be  held  up,  or  protected  from  outside,  in  so  doing. 

Again,  while,  as  I  have  already  said,  the  essence  of  the  race 
problem  is  the  peaceful  common  occupancy  of  the  same  territory 
by  people  of  two  widely  differing  races,  a  certain  responsibility 
rests  on  us  of  the  North,  and  especially  us  of  New  England;  for 


18 


it  does  not  admit  of  denial  that  the  connection  between  the 
existing  race  problem  phenomena  which  so  perplex  us  and  the 
reconstruction  policies  and  incidents  to  which  I  have  so  pointedly 
referred  is  that  of  direct  and  historical  sequence.  In  this  case, 
while  we  of  New  England  may  go  into  court  with  a  clear  conscience 
as  to  goodness  of  our  intentions,  we  do  not,  in  view  of  actual  results, 
stand  there  with  clean  hands.  The  reconstruction  policy  of  1866 
we  forced  on  the  helpless  States  of  the  Confederacy  was  worse 
than  a  crime;  it  was  a  political  blunder,  as  ungenerous  as  it  was 
gross. 

Looking,  therefore,  into  the  future,  illumined  by  the  strong  search¬ 
light  of  the  past,  of  one  thing  only  do  I  feel  assured.  The  solution 
of  this  problem  must  be  worked  out  in  the  South;  and,  while  its 
solution  will  be  attended  with  infinite  difficulty,  and  loud  and 
reiterated  calls  for  sympathy  and  aid  from  without,  I  am  satisfied 
that,  in  the  future  as  in  the  past,  any  external  intervention  of  a 
political  character  will  tend  only  to  confusion,  suffering  and  harm. 
And  upon  this  conclusion  I  am  satisfied  the  mind  of  the  North  is 
rapidly  crystallizing.  Individually,  and  in  concert  among  ourselves, 
it  is,  and  will  be,  incumbent  on  us  to  do  whatever  we  clearly  see  our 
way  to  do  towards  the  uplift  of  the  Afro-American.  As  political 
communities,  however,  or  acting  through  the  national  government, 
the  only  wise  attitude  for  us  outsiders  to  assume  must  be  one  of 
sympathetic  observation.  The  recent  terrible  experience  in  the  Illi¬ 
nois  Springfield  should  satisfy  us  that  there  is  Christianizing  work  for 
us  at  home.  So  I  fully  concur  in  the  conclusions  of  one  of  the  most 
hopeful  as  well  as  thoughtful  of  your  Southern  students  of  this 
problem,  expressed  in  a  recently  published  volume  which  I  de¬ 
voutly  wish  all  my  Northern  friends  would  prayerfully  study. 
Writing  in  Mississippi,  and  from  the  heart  of  the  Black  Belt, 
Mr.  Alfred  Holt  Stone,  quoting  Booker  T.  Washington,  says:  “  ‘My 
own  belief  is,  although  I  have  never  before  said  so  in  so  many 
words,  that  the  time  will  come  when  the  Negro  in  the  South  will 
be  accorded  all  the  political  rights  which  his  ability,  character 
and  material  possessions  entitle  him  to.  I  think,  though,  that 
the  opportunity  to  freely  exercise  such  political  rights  will  not 
come  in  any  large  degree  through  outside  or  artificial  forcing,  but 
will  be  accorded  to  the  Negro  by  the  Southern  white  people  them¬ 
selves,  and  that  they  will  protect  him  in  the  exercise  of  those 
rights.’  ” 

Naturally,  you  will  ask  me  if,  in  speaking  thus,  I  speak  for  my¬ 
self  only,  or  as  representing,  or  thinking  that  I  represent,  a  mass  of 
growing  Northern  opinion.  And,  in  any  case,  what  bearing  has  it 


19 


all  on  the  pending  presidential  election  ?  My  answer  is  direct  and 
specific.  I  speak  only  for  myself;  but,  none  the  less,  I  know  that 
in  so  doing  I  voice  a  large  and  growing,  and  in  the  end  most  influ¬ 
ential,  public  opinion.  Its  influence  has  already  been  felt  in  politi¬ 
cal  action.  How  to  promote  the  growth  of  opinion,  and  accelerate 
the  action,  is  another  matter;  and  that  rests  largely  with  you 

—  your  moderation,  your  self-restraint,  your  sense  of  justice 
and  your  spirit  of  what  is  known  as  fair  play.  My  reply 
carries  also  an  answer  to  your  second  question,  —  how  what 
I  have  said  bears  on  the  pending  election.  It  bears  very 
closely  upon  it.  You  may  not  realize  the  fact,  —  I  doubt  if  you 
even  suspect  it;  but,  as  I  see  it  from  my  point  of  view,  Virginia 
to-day  holds,  —  or  rather  Virginia  will  on  Tuesday,  the  3d  of 
November,  hold  politically  a  position  of  great  strategic  importance, 

—  as  important  as  that  held  by  her  in  1787,  or  again  in  1861.  It 
rests  on  her  now,  if  she  sees  fit  so  to  do,  to  serve  notice  on  both 
political  parties  and  the  country  that  the  last  movement  resultant 
from  the  War  of  Secession,  and  incident  to  the  Period  of  Recon¬ 
struction,  has  come  to  a  close;  and,  consequently,  that  the  Solid 
South  stands  dissolved,  and  demands  full  political  recognition. 
The  troubled  waters  have  become  calm.  What  would  be  the 
result  of  her  so  doing?  It  scarcely  needs  to  be  pointed  out. 
Suppose  for  a  moment  that  Virginia  next  Tuesday  week  should 
throw  a  majority  vote  for  Mr.  Taft,  thus  serving  formal  notice 
that  she  had  broken  the  tie  which  bound  her,  in  common  with 
her  Confederate  sisters,  to  what  I  have  referred  to  as  the  tail-board 
of  the  Democratic  prairie  schooner,  —  what,  I  ask,  would  be  the 
immediate  political  result  of  her  so  doing?  You  yourselves  know, 
for  you  are  not  unacquainted  with  the  nature  of  our  Northern 
politicians.  But  I  will  tell  you  all  the  same,  —  I  will  shout  it, 
if  you  ask  me  to,  from  your  house-tops.  The  immediate  result 
would  be  such  surprise  and  delight  in  the  Republican  camp  that 
the  colonels  and  captains,  as  well  as  the  rank  and  file,  would  give 
you  anything  you  asked  for;  while,  on  the  other  hand,  in  their 
utter  dismay  and  confusion  those  of  the  Democratic  camp  would 
let  you  dictate  your  own  terms,  if  only  you  would  come  back  to 
the  prairie-schooner  tail-board.  So  far  as  your  own  local  questions 
and  interests  are  concerned,  by  regaining  your  independence  of 
political  action  you  make  yourselves  complete  masters  of  the 
situation. 

I  have  given  you  my  message. 


20 


r  \S  , 


